About this Show

The War Room With Jennifer Granholm

News/Business. (2012) New. (CC) (Stereo)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING
PG

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 107 (CURNT)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 6, Jennifer 6, Jill Kelly 5, Fbi 5, Obama 5, Bengahzi 4, Karl Rove 4, Vo 3, Broadwell 3, Paula Broadwell 3, Chris Christie 2, Texas 2, Peter Johnson 2, Afghanistan 2, Rick Perry 2, Eliot 2, Obama Administration 2, Forsythe 2, Kansas 2, David Petraeus 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  Current    The War Room With Jennifer Granholm    News/Business.   
   (2012) New. (CC) (Stereo)  

    November 12, 2012
    7:00 - 8:00pm PST  

7:00pm
>> jennifer: i'm jennifer granholm. and tonight in "the war room," it's good to know that washington has not lost its touch when it comes to a scandal. previously on capitol affair. >> because the american people expect us to we are. >> can grover win him back proving once and for all that he's a serious man. >> the president was committed elected on the basis that he was not romney and romney was a poopy head. >> more intriguing details the spy and the biographer and the lady that the biographer didn't like bengahzi and i think peter king is in there somewhere.
7:01pm
like sands through an hour glass, so--what? copyrighted, got it. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> jennifer: this year a record setting 20 women were elected to the senate overall and there will be more women serving in congress than ever before. it's not just family female leaders who are making their voices heard but the female voters who voteed overwhelmingly for president obama. there was a 20-percent gender gap, the largest gender gap that gallop ever recorded. now that we have located 20 women to congress what do we have to deal with? a very public sex scandal.
7:02pm
>> general david petraeus resigned citing an extramarital affair. >> jennifer: the country is again 'em broil embroiled in a debate over gender roles power and sex. put on your hat. put on your seat belts. let's take a look at how this story is unfolding as i speak. several months ago fbi agents started investigating harassment allegations against paula broad broadwell, general petraeus' biography and as it turns out, his mistress. they sent messages to this woman, jill kelly who worked as a social liaison at an air force base, and she also knows petraeus. the messages were not threatening but full of cat
7:03pm
fight stuff like you parade around the base. you need to take it down a notch. those were the e-mail messages sent from paula broadwell to jill kelly. and jill kelly took those e-mails to the fbi and said i don't know who this person is and i don't want to keep getting them. the fbi learned that the e-mails were coming from broadwell, and they interviewed paula broadwell and general petraeus, and they admitted that they were having an affair with each other. they said that the affair went on after he left the military. if it went on during military duty he could be prosecuted in military courts. they also looked at whether broadwell leaked confidential information. she gave a speech in october and
7:04pm
its getting particular attention because she suggested that the attacks on the libyan consulate were retaliation for the united states taking libyans hostage. >> i don't know if you a lot of you heard this, but the c.i.a. had taken a couple of libyan militia members prisoner, and they believe that the attack on the consulate was because of that. he's not been able to communicate with the press. he has known all of this. >> jennifer: hmm. so the c.i.a. called those statements uninformed and basils but itbaseless. she said she later heard that stuff on fox news but fox news never reported it. so then tonight a local north carolina news station reported
7:05pm
several fbi agents actually entered paula broadwell's house right now. but wouldn't give any information about what they were doing there. now finally to cap off this monday night of scandal and intrigue there is this bit of information. the wall street journal is now reporting that that fbi agent who launched the investigation into the e-mails and the affair? that that fbi agent was barred from taking part in the investigation because he had a "personal" connection to it. specifically, a specifi connection to jill kelly and the agent sent jill kelly shirtless photos of himself. you literally cannot make this stuff up. so all of this got us talking about the age-old question surrounding powerful men who cheat on their wives. does it make a difference when it's a four-star general or a governor or a president?
7:06pm
and why is it that we just don't hear about high profile women cheating? for those questions and more i'm joined by patricia rose professor at brown university from providence, row identify land and i would like to welcome hugo switzer and he teaches on gender studies. thank you both for joining us. tricia, i want to start with you. how do you think that--this is a question we've all been asking--how can somebody whose entire career and life was built around an ethical code, honor and integrity how can he breach the trust that he had built and put his entire career at risk? >> well, i mean, there's no question that those are ethical standards to which all humans
7:07pm
strife, but rarely reach all the time. so of course this is a very visible flaming demise of his articulating these values. but i think we want to remember that humans are flawed and humans make mistakes, and when you couple that with the ways in which people get intoxicated with power, it's not unable to imagine that some would have these failings. i think we should be more--not make excuses but we should under that that's very likely to happen. >> jennifer: well, so i'm interested in the dynamic on this. hugo, you wrote a very it fascinating piece called "why do men cheat with their biographers." you wrote men whose lives are defined by public action and attentiveness to image are vulnerable to the imposer syndrome. what did you mean by that, and how does it apply to general
7:08pm
petraeus? >> thank you so much. the impose imposer impostor syndrome is deep down inside you're not sure you belong where you are. one of the things about being a boy raised in our society you take doubt and fear and stuff it deep down inside. that's particularly true with professions like politics and the military. of course, that doubt is still there. and it gnaws and it gnaws and there is a feeling greater in some men than others that any moment they're going to be exposeed as frauds. the appeal of being with your biographer is beyond purely sexual although that is part of it. it's not only a chance to have sexual release and fantasy but to be validated as being good.
7:09pm
to have someone who knows everything about you, who has seen you naked and seen you naked in both senses emotionally and physically, and pronounces you good. that's an incox intoxicating thing to a self-doubting man. >> jennifer: i'm intrigued by the differences here in genders potentially. tricia, i appreciate what you said in the first answer because you were pre-athleticking reflecting on the humanness of it. and in an article it suggests that men women are just as prone to this as men. do you buy that, doesn't it
7:10pm
matter to the gender. >> it could be that women are smarter, maybe they're just better at it. but in all seriousness, it's important to to remember that we can't talk about power without talking about it in its context. there is no power. it's gender and power. the way we perceive these behaviors. the way we perceive broadwell those are all going to be gender. because she has some power and she can't be understood as the victim and that might have been the case if she had less power than he, if she was a secretary this is sill still a pendulum that will shape the behavior of both genders, and women in particular that's the framework that they respond in. we can't see gender and power outside of each other. >> jennifer: i hear what you're
7:11pm
saying although maybe--i just don't see powerful women--i don't see that being an aphrodisiac for many men. many men are repelled by it, and they run from. whereas many women are attracted to that. don't you think there is a gender difference. >> there is no question--men--heterosexual men are raised to imagine themselves as powerful and in control--not in an always in a negative way but in control of women as possible. and when their desire can be affirmed. but women don't construct themselves in a power of power. that's mostly being an position of being an object. if the study is correct and you're citing it. i haven't read it.
7:12pm
>> jennifer: i don't buy it. >> then we have to ask questions. >> jennifer: i don't buy it. my gut is always right. hugo, the new yorker said-- >> look, i think in general women. >> jennifer: i just want to jump to hugo really fast because i know we're running out. the new yorker jane mayor said if we weren't so caught up in what she calls the victorian shame game then this wouldn't be an insecurity because there wouldn't be anything to blackmail petraeus with since there are so many people having affairs any way. do you think she has a point. >> no, i don't. that's a very easy thing to say. no matter how common affairs are, and we all know that they are, when we are the betrayed spouse or betrayed boyfriend or
7:13pm
girlfriend, it's absolutely devastating. the fact that it's something that has happened to many of your friend or parents doesn't make it any less painful. and you know, the philandering spouse knows that if this secret comes out somebody--usually their husband wife or kids or somebody is going to be devastated. it's not about shame but the pain of a broken promise. >> jennifer: that is a really great point. >> jen if you have two second for me to pipe in on that. >> jennifer: two seconds, jump in and then we got to go. >> yes i mean it's true it is about pain. but people do many things to hurt their spouses. but when it comes to sex, shame gets attached to the pain and that's why we get into additional trouble. >> jennifer: this whole thing is shameful and painful to the nation as well as to the families as well.
7:14pm
tricia rose and hugo switzer i appreciate it. the right wing is imploding on itself blaming each other on last tuesday's loss. not that they would change thing, but that they would have a heads up that they were about to get thumped. plus the billionaires are also aggrieved. they're forced to trade in their panda fur sweater vest for something that says i gave $100 million to karl rove and all i got is this lousy t-shirt. and you're lucky you got that, gentlemen. here in our own country. >> it's an issue that ultimately effects each and every one of us. >> thats why current is stepping up. >> ... by feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >> for an entire week we'll explore hunger, malnutrition even obesity. >> ... and offer solutions.
7:15pm
>> so join us here at current tv where together, we'll feed the needy. >> brought to you by basf the chemical company.
7:16pm
[ forsythe ] we don't just come up here for the view up in alaska. it's the cleanest, clearest water. we find the best sweetest crab for red lobster that we can find. [ male announcer ] hurry in to red lobster's crabfest! the only time of year you can savor 5 succulent crab entrees all under 20 dollars. like a half-pound of tender snow crab paired with savory grilled shrimp, just 12.99. or our hearty crab and roasted garlic seafood bake. [ forsythe ] if i wouldn't put it on my table at home, i wouldn't bring it in. my name's jon forsythe and i sea food differently. from silver screens... to flat screens...
7:17pm
twizzlerize your entertainment everyday with twizzlers the twist you can't resist. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> jennifer: general david petraeus' resignation can be described as a scandal, a national security disaster a tragedy, but for fox news, just another opportunity. >> i thought that based on the evidence we had then, this was the obama administration's watergate. this gets deeper and deeper every day. >> jennifer: well? by the way that man peter johnson jr. is the channel's legal analyst. then fox strategic analyst ralph peters goes further down the foxhole of self delusion with this wacky theory connecting petraeus' resignation to his scheduled testimony on libya.
7:18pm
>> the administration was unhappy with petraeus not playing ball 100 hers on their party line story. i think he was getting cold feet about testifying under oath under the party line story. and under these tough chicago guys, they knew about this affair for a while and held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card. i don't like conspiracy theories, i could be totally wrong. >> jennifer: i don't like conspiracy theories, either, and i'm pretty sure you are totally wrong. here to talk with me about the petraeus resignation and the election burke be great to have you back inside "the war room." >> thanks for having me. >> let's take the petraeus resignation first. does that resignation actuallily
7:19pm
feet right-wing history i can't over bengahzi and do you think it will stick? >> everything feeds it. peter johnson, who is also robert lles attorney and has been more known to traffic in the more strange conspiracy theories that come from robert els. any chance to talk about bengahzi and to wide then so-called scandal and any way to portray it as the next watergate if you ignore the fact that in bengahzi there were public hearings 30 days after the fact and watergate took two years because there was a criminal coverup. if you ignore that part, they're similar. fox news went bonkers on the benghazi story. clear up to the election they used it to portray obama in
7:20pm
these dark fantasies. they were literally talking about how obama had watched a live video stream of the attack and heard the cries for help, and he ordered that no one go and rescue our american soldiers. they were so far into this dark fantasy. and one other quick point and i think it was one of the most shameful facts i've ever seen on fox news. the night after sandy literally drowned the new york city metropolitan area, sean hannity appeared on fox news that night and talked about bengahzi for an hour. he had no interest in the fact that fox's hometown of new york city had been decimated by the storm. >> jennifer: i thought they blamed the storm on the president, too, didn't they? >> yes exactly. everything is a chance to talk about benghazi, and certainly petraeus is another example. >> jennifer: let's just jump to the election because everybody has been talking about this today. leading up to the election, fox news has been pushing either
7:21pm
romney was going to win and they were still debating the results. turns oh out the president wins the popular vote, not to mention the electoral landslide. he won the popular vote, and do you think that they realized that they're actually living in a fact-free bubble? they're crafting this tale and they actually buy into it? >> well, that's what has sparked this backlash. a lot of viewers, not just of fox news but rush limbaugh listeners, people who troll the right wing internet all the time, they were in this bubble. they were--they were voluntarilying in this right wing bubble. romney is going to win. you can't trust the polls. they're winning. the $64,000 question what were all of these people going to do on the election night when obama won?
7:22pm
now we have seen the fallout. now there is around within the conservative movement directed at fox news saying you sold us a bill of goods and this is what sort of self-imposed ignorance looks like. this will be fascinating to see how it plays out. i have no idea if the republican party will be able to diverse itself from fox news. but they gave misinformation. >> jennifer: i think there is a great encapsulation on this morningio, joe scarborough said he was lied to but the conservative establishment. take a listen to his clip. >> my biggest problem was that i was lied to. i was lied to by the--as david fromm said, from the conservative entertainment establishment, the conservative media establishment. they lied to the donors. they lied to the base. they lied to everyone. >> jennifer: that is pretty
7:23pm
condemning. the question is do you think the rational republicans are catching on to fox news propaganda? >> they might have caught on, but there is going to be a tug-of-war. fox news is not going to give up it's authority. it's interesting that people are saying, i was lied to. come on, all you had to do was click over to nate silver's site and see what empirical evidence looks like. these are people who were voluntarily lied to. though bought into it and now they're bitter that they were lied to. >> jennifer: they should have been reading it, it's clear to all of us. our final question really fast according to "the new york times," david carr, this election was the most fact-checked in history. >> that's right. >> jennifer: do you think the president's re-election proves that voters were not dupe by all of that, that they really did get the message? i wonder how much the margin would have been had fox news not
7:24pm
been perpetrating these lies. but nonetheless, it's encouraging, don't you think. >> it's definitely encouraging and the most graph flying is that karl rove spent $300 million of somebody else's money, and it didn't matter. those poor people in ohio had to sit there all those ads, and it didn't matter in the end. >> jennifer: i'm raising my glass to the tolerant people of ohio who had to sit through all of that. thank you eric bowler, for coming inside "the war room." up next, their actions overseas are nothing short of heroic, but the obstacles that our veterans face back here in america is nothing short of tragic. we'll shift our focus over to what must be done to help our returning veterans here at home. that's next stay with us.
7:25pm
7:26pm
7:27pm
>>i jump out of my skin at people when i'm upset. they're doing this this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>that's an understatement, eliot. >> i want my leg, can't you under? can't you under that? all i'm saying is i want to be treated like a human being. i fought for my country. i'm a vietnam veteran! >> jennifer: tom cruise played aviette number vet in "born on the fourth of july," but he could have easily been playing a veteran from iraq and afghanistan.
7:28pm
these men and women have made incredible sacrifices here are the statistics. those who enlisted 9/11, 9.7%. nearly 450,000 recent veterans have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. young veterans, they're four times as likely to commit suicide as non-veterans. the numbers are stunning, but what are we actually doing to address these deeply troubling statistics? joining me now for insights on the crisis fating veterans is aaron glance. a journalist for investigative reporting. he's the author of "the war come home," a book detailing the neglect of our veterans. thank you for coming to "the war room." >> thank you for having me.
7:29pm
>> jennifer: what can we do as a nation. >> the good news, we've made progress. we don't spit on our veterans who are coming home. >> jennifer: thank the lord for that. >> in the 70s when the veterans were coming home, people didn't know what ptsd was. they were called malingerers with flashbacks. now we have a system that is supposed to help people. but getting access to that care has become increasingly difficult. >> jennifer: the department of veteran affairs say they're going to hire 16,000 more psychologists, psychiatrists and counselors. >> we've been at war for a decade and they're just now ramping up. meanwhile, 2.4 million americans have fought in iraq and afghanistan and almost half a million have been diagnosed with
7:30pm
post traumatic stress disorder. they're going to be treated with 1600 people. this comes after the v.a.'s inspector general a few months ago said that the v.a. were cooking the books. they were seeing all veterans within 30 days for psychiatric appointments as required by law but in fact, they weren't. it was after that that the obama administration announced they were going behind these to add these additional clinicians. >> jennifer: they admitted that they had made mistakes in processing and delays. the processing mistakes are 14% of the disability claims and then 600,000 backlog, which is-- >> 600,000 is just a number of veterans when have been waiting for more than four months for their benefits. there is actually 900,000 veteran who is are have applied for disability benefits from the v.a. and are waiting. you mention errors. at the center of investigative reporterreporting we just did an
7:31pm
analysis and found that actually amongst the high profile claims like agent orange illnesses traumatic brain injuries it was more than one in three that the auditors found were the v.a. made a mistake. these people who were denied their benefits. they don't go away. they go right back into the backlog, they appeal, and they can be stuck for years. >> jennifer: that's so frustrating to hear. 1600 is not enough that's what you're saying. what needs to happen? >> the good news for people who care about this issue is that the obama administration has put a lot of money into this. >> jennifer: this is not on the block for the sequester cuts. this is money that's going to happen. >> i'm not an expert on the fiscal cliff but the obama administration has had a commitment to putting money towards these problems. the question after four years of this why aren't those additional dollars translating into a real difference that veterans have. when obama took office we had
7:32pm
400,000 veterans waiting. now we have 900,000 veterans waiting. clearly what he has done has not done the trick. the question is where is the leadership, and how are we going to see that real change. it's not just about money. >> jennifer: from your perspective in investigating this, are there best practices? is there something that we should look to that does this well? how can we leave people waiting? there is a personnel issue. is there a facility issue. >> there is definitely a facility issue but there is a bureaucratic systems issue. many have suggested that reforming the v.a. compensation system to make it like the irs. the people say oh, my god that's horrible. when you file your tax return someone will get a $2,000 refund. and the irs will sent it to you. and then they'll audit you and if you cheat you'll face significant penalties.
7:33pm
most of us get our refund. we don't have to wait for months or years to have the irs check. >> jennifer: and it should default in favor of the veterans instead of making them wait for all the investigation to happen for them to get treatment. >> or compensation. >> jennifer: or compensation. has this just been politicized too much. >> i think people want to say good things about veterans. george bush said good things about veterans and obama said good things about veterans. the problem is focus. he has given this additional money, but where is the focus in the reform that he talks about in his speeches actually happens. >> jennifer: do you have confidence in the leadership that it will happen? >> as we've talked about the things that happened in the last four years under president obama has not been entirely positive. >> jennifer: but you have a volume of people coming back, that increases your volume but you need streamlining of the system. >> absolutely and leadership.
7:34pm
>> jennifer: aaron. thank you so much for joining us inside "the war room" to talk about these really important issues and thanks for your research on it. aaron glantz, up next, republican governors are on the clock. enact obama-care by friday otherless. we'll tell what you the "or else" is and what it means for you. we'll be right back.
7:35pm
[ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪
7:36pm
7:37pm
>> we're not going to participate in exchanges. we're not going to expand medicaid. we're not going to be a part of socializing healthcare in the state of text texas and in direct conflict of our founding fathers. >> jennifer: really? that's rick perry vowing to stop obama-care. i really don't remember reading anywhere in the constitution that our founding fathers are against universal healthcare. texas is not alone.
7:38pm
kansas, alaska oklahoma among others who say they have no plans to implement obama-care. states only have until friday--this friday to say how they're going to enact obama-care if the federal government--if they don't do it, the federal government will step in to do it for them. so for perspective on that issue i'm joined by mother jones reporter andy kr oh oll joining us by scape from ready ford, virginia. welcome in "the war room"." >> thanks for having me. >> jennifer: describe for people what exactly is that these states have to set in motion by friday. >> very simply, it's a website where you can go to, an array of options, a menu of health insurance plans that you as a consumer can pick from. you can pick out the price. you can pick out the options like you would on a car.
7:39pm
you you do you have extra added benefits or do you pare back your benefits. the choice is yours. s options are there and you buy it there and then based on who is in your area. >> jennifer: it's an effort to create private sector market. it's there to make it easy for people. describe what happens if governors of these states refuse to enact the exchanges. >> we've had a number of republican governors like rick perry who said we don't want anything to do with obama-care and these exchanges. in this case the federal government will take a proactive role here because this is the land of the lane. house speaker john boehner has said it himself. this is the law of the land. this is the next big step. if perry and walker don't do t
7:40pm
then the federal will do it for them. >> jennifer: this seems to me these republican governors are all about state rights would want to set up this exchange because it allows them to be these states and republican governors in charge and not the hated federal government. why are they fighting? >> they're putting ideology and partisan politics over the benefits of consumers. the great fallacy here is that obama-care is a government takeover of your healthcare. the government will come into your life and control your care. but these exchanges are private insurers they're giving you option. it is a marketplace and a private marketplace for to you pick out the best options amist amidst these horrible ones. it's really partisan talking
7:41pm
points no more, no less. >> jennifer: earlier this year chris christie vetoed the bill but since that time the new jersey legislature passed a similar bill, and it's back on his desk, and it's back to weigh in whether he's going to veto it or not. do you have an idea what he's going to do? >> not yet, and there is a battle taking place in new jersey between americans for prosperity, the koch-backed conservative group that is pressuring chris christie to veto it, and they're bringing up his support for president obama during the aftermath of hurricane sandy, which has become a shake for governor christie. they're pressing him on this. they're saying, stop carrying obama's water and do the right thing--in their eyes. christie has been mum on this, and we're waiting to see what he's going to do. this will have national political--
7:42pm
>> jennifer: a lot of people will be watching and i think he'll have coverage if he decides to sign it given that he doesn't want the federal government meddling in this. andy kroll. thank you for coming on "the war room"." asking karl rove is there any difference between him and a teenager on a spending spree at the mall. and so far karl rove has not been able to come up with an answer. thethat is next on "the war room." (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >>you couldn't say it any more powerfully than that. >> current tv, on the roll. (vo)followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. >>ah, thank you. >>it really is incredible. (vo)bill press and stephanie miller, current's morning news block. weekdays six to noon.
7:43pm
7:44pm
7:45pm
7:46pm
[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> jennifer: for all the talk about the $53 million that republican casino mogul sheldon adelson lost on backing two losers like newt gringrich and mitt romney, we shouldn't forget about how much money citizens united allowed outside groups to spend on this campaign and on the republican side how miserably they failed. according to the campaign donor watchdog group sunlight foundation, the karl rove-backed american crossroads super pac had a return of investment of 1.2%. according to sunlight, 1.29% of the money spent had its desired outcome. they spent $104 million, but one won only two of 19 races. now rows crossroads gps had an return
7:47pm
of investment of 14.4% and they and the it's sister organization, they only came ahead in seven of 60 races. ouch! that's just really poor investment by all these alleged business experts. we already knew that money can't buy you love, but it's also nice to know that it won't buy you votes. here to joining someone who knows all about donors, wade randlett is a prolific fundraiser for democrats and founder of bay area democrats and part of silicon valley's bipartisan political action committee. great win on behalf of the
7:48pm
president. >> i haven't slept since tuesday, but doing pretty well. >> jennifer: really? you look pretty good. i'm curious who the liberal donors are saying about the lack of return that the right wing donors got on their investment. >> first of all, there is relief. if we had the triangle of the country, i think we're going to look at a constitutional amendment. exactly what form that takes and exactly how the president chooses and the administration chooses to move forward with it, he's no less committed to changing this system because he won than he was when it looked like-- >> jennifer: i'm so happy to hear you say that because one might have thought even though they set up all of these huge donors because it didn't work, that the pressure would be off to amend citizens united, but that's not the case. >> i don't think our side has changed it's point of view.
7:49pm
i'm opening that the republican point of view is saying this is a bernie madeoff scheme. this is not something that i'll get everything i want and now all the rules have changed. they spent the doctors. >> jennifer: it was an opportunity to build a coalition to change citizens united. >> when you talk to the folks who do the polling and focus polling, rank and file--not the $10 million donors but voters who vote down the ticket every time they don't like money in politics. they would like to have a fair democracy without that kind of spending. i think there is a way of looking--it's a high bar for a constitutional amendment but i think we have republicans and leanings of republicans toward this. >> jennifer: you have to have an constitution amendment at the state level the state
7:50pm
constitution but you won't get it passed through congress. that means a whole earth across the country to build campaigns in each of the 50 states. >> i think we saw the campaign spread across the country that did separate well. >> jennifer: and that infrastructure is there. >> that infrastructure is not there for president obama to win any election for the rest of his life. is this a great opportunity for to say this is something that is important for the country. let's turn our attention to that. >> jennifer: one area that the large republican donors did have success was in state legislature legislature. the koch brothers had been able to turn over the kansas legislature to be in their image, now they've done the same thing with arkansas. with you concerned that there will be just new targets for the large dollar right-wing donors. >> i'll make two points on that. it's very clear from post citizens united the higher the office the less return.
7:51pm
the lower the office, the fewer media eyes are on that, and the more you can get away with. on the other side, the truth is on those lower ballot races big money has been able to pour in independent expenditures, state parties and other means for a long period of time. what you pointed out there has been more money in that vein than previously, but let's face it losing that race, that's not great, but losing the presidency and key senate races is a much bigger deal. >> jennifer: i totally agree with you on that. let me say one other thing that i want everybody to know. carl maranucci one of our favorites, she reported that the bay area here outraised new york, outfundraised new york for president obama $14.7 million to $14.5 million. that's tract directly to the campaign. do you think the san francisco bay area is the new officer for progressive fundraising?
7:52pm
largely due to you. >> not largely due to me, but an important reason people need to understand. this is the epicenter where you don't have folks who are just socially left or wall street or whatever. this is where entrepreneurship married with socially progressive issues, and they get along just fine. the reason why we've seen what you pointed out is that the long tail trend where the pro growth, pro competition portrayed pro trade policies can all be in the same room at the same time. that's not necessarily true in those or areas and our trajectory appears to to be up and to the right as far as i can see but that's not true other center centers more money over time. >> jennifer: wade randlett thank you for coming into the war
7:53pm
room. and your efforts to make history again. up next, the belle of political scandal rings, and of course brett erlich comes running. >> coming up, my in-depth analysis of the fiscal cliff and it's monetary effect on on the global economy. just kidding. we're going it talk about that chick who slept with that dude. don't go away. they're doing this this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>that's an understatement, eliot.
7:54pm
7:55pm
but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks or jumping into the market he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense from td ameritrade. ññrrrrenttv
7:56pm
7:57pm
7:58pm
7:59pm